Barack Obama may recruit defence chief Robert Gates
In defiance of traditional party labels, Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, may ask the defence secretary of President George W Bush to stay on if he wins the White House.
Obama’s top foreign policy and national security advisers are pressing the case for keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon after he won widespread praise for his performance. The move would be in keeping with Obama’s desire to appoint a cabinet of all the talents.
Considering that earlier Obama talked about appointing such luminaries as Lugar, Hagel, and Schwarzenegger I have to ask: is this about change? or changiness?
This… Might not actually be all bad. The political battle lines over invading Iran are in very odd places right now. Gates is, by Hersh’s report, one of the leaders of the group that’s most strongly opposed to invading Iran. On the other hand, the Democratic leadership has basically caved to Israeli pressure and is backing the invasion plans. And once again, Obama can’t do anything overt until after the convention, lest that same Democratic leadership abandon him and restore the reign of Her Highness Hillary “Obliterate!” Clinton. Signaling his support for Gates like this seems like it could potentially lend a lot of weight to the anti-war group while not doing anything that Pelosi, Reid, and Hoyer can use to justify reprisals.
Wouldn’t it be better to have a DEMOCRATIC Sec of Defense who opposes invading Iran, opposes torture and will do something about violence against women in the military?
Obama will win with majorities in the Senate and House. Nobody is gonna take him on in a confirmation fight.
Ah, but that’s the thing… I think the Democratic leadership is stuck in a “pre-Dean” mentality, just as Clinton’s disaster masquerading as a campaign was. Look at how Hoyer defends the repugnant FISA “compromise”:
They’re stuck in old-school thinking, afraid that if they dare to speak up or oppose Bush, the Republicans will call them weak and the electorate will immediately abandon them. They don’t want another Kerry or Gore, never mind that they don’t understand why Kerry and Gore lost. If I’m right about their mentality, they certainly would drop Obama like a hot potato if he came out too strongly against their surrender. And it wouldn’t be a confirmation fight. They’d simply announce their support of The Obliterator, and the whole thing would be over – The Obliterator would have the delegates and Obama wouldn’t.
(Also, a better SoD would be nice, but would a “Democratic” SoD be better? That smacks of the same craven partisanship that’s landed us in this mess in the first place.)
Because of these cowards, our choice isn’t between a SoD who will do all the things you say and one who won’t. Our choice is between giving political strength to a SoD who opposes a disastrous invasion that would cost millions of innocent lives and destroy the American economy… And letting him be pushed aside. Given the likely results of a war with Iran and the scarcity of allies of the anti-war movement right now, I think that it’s worth a lot of short-term compromises to prevent it.
beg to differ. The Pentagon just announced a 30,000 troop deployment in 2009. Also the Iraq situation is being painted in a positive light…”far from a lost cause>”
recommend a read in The Atlantic
Change from Obama? Not so much. He’s in reverse gear. I expect a Clinton Administration third term – he’s loading up with all the Clinton aides with tongue hanging ready to kiss ass. Maintain the status quo. No change. So far, on all major pronouncements from Obama, I’m not impressed.
Just watch, “I’ll listen to the Generals and they’ve recommended and I’ve endorsed…”
You beg to differ on what? Here’s what I’m saying:
So, which of these is false? Do you believe the Democratic leadership, Bush administration, and Israel do not want an invasion of Iran? If so, you’re delusional. Do you believe Hersh is being intentionally misleading or is mistaken? If so, you’d better have evidence to back up your claim. Do you believe that Pelosi, Reid, and Hoyer wouldn’t kneecap Obama if he tried to reign in their attempts to cover their asses? That’d be very naive. Do you believe there are worse but plausible things that could happen between now and January? If so, we’re screwed anyway.
The weakest part of my argument is #5, and I’d say that, given #4, anything that helps firm up the tenuous alliance between the anti-war movement and the upper reaches of the Armed Forces over Iran is a good thing.
Well gee, thanks for dropping by.
The question: Will Obama keep Gates as Sec of Defense?
Your opening comment to which I replied:
“This Might not actually be all bad.”The political battle lines over invading Iran are in very odd places right now. Gates is, by Hersh’s report, one of the leaders of the group that’s most strongly opposed to invading Iran. On the other hand, the Democratic leadership has basically caved to Israeli pressure and is backing the invasion plans. And once again, Obama can’t do anything overt until after the convention, lest that same Democratic leadership abandon him and restore the reign of Her Highness Hillary “Obliterate!” Clinton. Signaling his support for Gates like this seems like it could potentially lend a lot of weight to the anti-war group while not doing anything that Pelosi, Reid, and Hoyer can use to justify reprisals”
Sorry but you did not elaborate points 1-5 to which I’m accused of not responding.
I stand by my comment..”I beg to differ…(that keeping Gates “[This]Might not actually be all bad”) because as cited in the The Atlantic piece, Obama wants out of Iraq, at least that’s what he has said. Gates was inclined to withdraw the troops from Iraq, now he’s announced an increase. Obama will find himself in the same place as Gates has.
So there’ll be No Change.
Now let’s address your point on an inevitable, imminent invasion of Iran by Israel and or a joint exercise with the U.S. or precisely as you stated: The Bush administration, Israel, and the Democratic leadership are pressing to invade Iran.
You also wrote:
“So, which of these is false? Do you believe the Democratic leadership, Bush administration, and Israel do not want an invasion of Iran? If so, you’re delusional.”
I dislike true or false questions so I’ll direct you here:
It’s Iran Panic. How likely is a scenario in which the US or Israel strikes Iran before Bush leaves office? (Or is the Left falling for the hawks’ propaganda?)
Imho, neither the U.S., Israel or the RoW can deal with the consequences of an attack on Iran…so they’ll keep to covert ops. Wish them lots of luck with that. This is Iran not Iraq. Before any thought of attacking Iran, leaders should have a talk with Mr. Khan in Pakistan on his moonlighting and reported exports. Mr. Khan is more dangerous than OBL.
Your next question:
“Do you believe Hersh is being intentionally misleading or is mistaken? If so, you’d better have evidence to back up your claim.”
I made no comment or mention of Sy Hersh’s piece being misleading or mistaken.
You also wrote
Do you believe that Pelosi, Reid, and Hoyer wouldn’t kneecap Obama if he tried to reign in their attempts to cover their asses? That’d be very naive. Do you believe there are worse but plausible things that could happen between now and January?
Unless they have a death wish, to lose the GE, there’s no reason or event that would lead Pelosi, Reid and Hoyer to kneecap Obama. That’s their guy….It’s now his Party.
Oh, I’m prepared to predict there are “things” (I ‘ll not characterize) that will happen between now and January 2011. For one, there’ll be an election. Oil will be priced higher than it is today. The US$ and the economy will be suffering hyperinflation. Housing will not recover until 2015. By 2011, our focus will be on Pakistan/Afghanistan, not Iraq or Iran. We’re going to be begging for Iran’s help.
Take it from one who wrote – within these pages all of last summer into the fall when Obama was not even on the radar – that“Hillary Clinton’s campaign will implode. And if by fluke she gets the nomination, she’ll not win” I make only certain types of predictions…every event in time leads to consequences. The future is determined by choices made in the present.
BTW, last evening I posted on the same Sunday Times UK article with a disclaimer that (The Times, UK is a Rupert Murdock property) which drew the comment from BooMan thus
“I wouldn’t put much, if any, stake in Murdoch’s English rag.”
And BTW – 2: I bite my fingers to keep a civil discourse. Delusional I’m not.
No way. Bob Gates is just another Bush shill, languishing in the halls of the defense dept. Anyway, he has no real power with Darth Cheney looking over his shoulder all the time, and frothing at the mouth to attack Iran.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama picked Chuck Hagel.
A lot of balloons get floated in election campaigns. Best not to pay much attention to them unless the candidate is the one making the proposal.
As for Gates, he has both pluses and minuses, but to his credit he has been a vast improvement on Rumsfeld, and by all accounts a counterweight to the Cheney branch of the government. Still, I would be reluctant to keep him in the post in an Obama administration if I were Obama. Too much baggage.
we should certainly pay attention and make it very clear that we expect a change candidate to make changes.